Time To Enage Hamas & Alterman On The Lobby
Abba Eban famously said that the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Like most bons mots, Eban’s was clever without saying very much. The Palestinians, of course, have missed one opportunity after another (most notably when they rejected the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947) but, contrary to Eban’s implication, the Israeli record on seizing opportunities is not much better.
The most egregious example of Israel not answering when opportunity knocked came in January 2000 when it became clear that Syrian President Hafez Assad was ready to sign a peace treaty with Israel.
At the urging of Prime Minister Ehud Barak, President Bill Clinton convened an Israeli-Syrian summit in Shepherdstown, West Virginia where the peace deal was to be wrapped up. Israel would surrender the Golan Heights in exchange for early warning systems on Syrian territory, an end to Syrian backing of Hamas and Hezbollah, and termination of the Iranian-Syrian anti-Israel alliance. In his memoirs,
Clinton described what happened next. “The Syrians came to Shepherdstown in a positive and flexible frame of mind, eager to make an agreement. By contrast, Barak, who had pushed hard for these talks, decided, apparently on the basis of polling data, that he needed to slow-walk the process for a few days in order to convince the Israeli public that he was being a tough negotiator. . . . I was, to put it mildly, disappointed. . . . Barak had not been in politics long, and I thought he had gotten some very bad advice. In foreign affairs, polls are often useless; people hire leaders to win for them, and it’s the results that matter.”
The Barak “slow-walk” killed the negotiations. It is now clear that had Barak followed Menachem Begin’s 1979 example and ignored the polls, the last seven years of Middle East history would likely have been entirely different to the huge benefit of Israel, Syria, the Palestinians, Lebanon, and the United States.
Similarly, had the Palestinians handled Ehud Barak’s tentative offer at Camp David in the summer of 2000 (imperfect as it was) in a more positive manner—rather than letting the summit collapse—a Palestinian state would perhaps already exist. One would think that following those experiences Arabs and Israelis would now seize any opportunity that arises.
Not so. The Israeli media is reporting that the Israeli government is trying to prevent the follow-up to Annapolis conference that is slated for early 2008 in Moscow. According to Ben Caspit, writing in Ma’ariv, the effort to thwart Moscow is being “spearheaded” by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni who says that “we have no intention of going to Moscow and there is no need for such a conference.”
Not surprisingly, the usual suspects in Washington are trying to sabotage the Moscow summit by lobbying Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to stay home. Why? Caspit says that Israeli officials don’t like Russia’s position on Iran, Syria, and Hamas and that there is “no reason for us to reward Russia by attending the conference. . . .”
Reward Russia? Actually the people rewarded by any peace conference at this point are Israelis and Palestinians. Viewing a Moscow peace conference simply as a gift to Russia is the kind of shortsightedness that has led to the deadly status quo. It is similar to the notion, all too common in right-wing circles in both Washington and Jerusalem, that negotiating with Palestinians is bestowing a gift upon them. It isn’t. Israelis need a negotiated end to the conflict at least as much as Palestinians do. Given the strategic dynamic in the region, Israelis may even need it more.
That is why the momentum created by the Annapolis meeting—and by the upcoming Bush visit to Israel and Palestine—needs to be exploited and deepened rather than deterred. Every opportunity to advance negotiations has to be seized.
Israel cannot afford to reject possible progress toward an agreement simply because it does not like the Putin government’s policies. (Who does? Certainly not the Bush administration.) And hard-line pro-Israel forces in the United States need to stop viewing Israeli-Palestinian negotiation as something to be feared rather than embraced.
Prime Minister Olmert understands that. It is telling that some of his supposed allies in Washington do not.
Along similar lines is the matter of Hamas and its latest cease-fire overtures. According to media reports, and confirmed by Israeli and Egyptian officials, Hamas has proposed stopping all Kassam rocket attacks in exchange for a halt to Israeli military operations in Gaza. Hamas would impose the truce not only on its own people but also on the militants who are firing the rockets—Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees. Yedioth Achronoth calls the Hamas offer evidence that Israeli attacks on Hamas are having the intended effect. “This only proves that Israeli policy is beginning to show signs of succeeding. Hamas is under pressure and searching a way out of the situation it has gotten itself into.”
Israeli officialdom is divided on how to respond. Shaul Mofaz, the hawkish minister of transportation —and former defense minister and IDF chief-of-staff—is inclined to go for it. According to Ma’ariv, he would not rule out indirect negotiations with Hamas to reach a “mutual cease-fire.” He says Israel “would not hold direct dialogue with Hamas as long as they do not recognize Israel’s right to exist but mediation is something we can think about.” Ami Ayalon, minister without portfolio and former head of the Shin Bet, said “I would . . . talk to anyone if the objective is stopping the Kassam rocket fire.” Other Israelis point out that there are other vital issues, which Israel should explore with Hamas in the context of mediation, starting with the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit.
The Israelis are running out of answers to the problems posed by Hamas’s control of Gaza. Punishing the local population through a continued blockade and power blackouts is both inhumane and ineffective. (Last week’s page one Washington Post story on the children in Gaza, who are now unable to get batteries for their hearing aids, did considerably more damage to Israel than banning the batteries does to Hamas.) Targeted assassinations certainly put some terrorists out of business but others take their place and the rocket attacks continue. A military invasion of Gaza would take innocent lives on both sides in a scene likely to be more Mogadishu than Six Day War.
What’s left? The one choice that has not been considered: finding out if some sort of deal can be reached. Will Olmert do it? Who knows? But lately he has demonstrated an instinctive understanding of Bill Clinton’s maxim about leadership. “Polls are often useless; people hire leaders to win for them, and it’s the results that matter.” Olmert knows that without exploring possibilities, there can be no results. Can he win for Israel and for the rest of us too? I’m betting that he can. Or am I just hoping.
Also, check out what Eric Alterman says about the lobby in this week's NATION. (I think I can reprint in full, not just link, because Eric sent it to me via e-mail).
'Bad for the Jews'
[from the January 7, 2008 issue]
Today's topic is the paradox--or one of them, anyway--of American Jewish political behavior. No, it's not that hoary old cliché that they "earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans." Rather, it's that they think like enlightened liberals yet allow belligerent right-wingers and neocons who frequently demonize, distort and denounce their values to speak for them in the US political arena.
Don't take my word for it. According to the American Jewish Committee's 2007 survey of American Jewry, released December 11, a majority of Jews in this country oppose virtually every aspect of the Bush Administration/neocon agenda. Not only do they disapprove of the Administration's handling of its "campaign against terrorism" (59-31 percent), they believe by a 67-to-27 margin that we should never have invaded Iraq. They are unimpressed by the "surge"--68 percent say it has either made no difference or made things worse, and by a 57-to-35 percent majority they oppose an attack on Iran, even if it was undertaken "to prevent [Iran] from developing nuclear weapons."
Jews are also impressively sensible when it comes to Israel/Palestine, all things considered. Though barely more than a third think peace is likely anytime soon, and more than 80 percent believe the goal of the Muslim states is to destroy Israel, a 46-to-43 percent plurality continues to support the creation of a Palestinian state.
This wholesale rejection of the Bush/neocon agenda, moreover, is consistent with the way American Jews describe their overall political identity. Jews are more liberal than conservative (43-25 percent) and far more Democratic than Republican (58-15 percent). This preference, significantly, extends to national security issues, often considered a Republican trump card. By a massive 61-to-21 percent margin, Jews say Democrats, not Republicans, are "more likely to make the right decision about the war in Iraq." Regarding terrorism, Democrats win 53-to-30 percent.
As a Jew who shares most of these beliefs, I am tempted to trumpet these numbers as big news, but it's news only if you haven't been paying attention. An examination of past AJC surveys as well as a number of other polls of American Jews demonstrates that Jews have remained remarkably faithful to the values of liberal humanism. These views, however, have been obscured in our political discourse by an unholy alliance between conservative-dominated professional Jewish organizations and neoconservative Jewish pundits, aided by pliant and frequently clueless mainstream media that empower these right-wingers to speak for a people with values diametrically opposed to theirs.
Take a look at the agendas of some of the most influential Jewish organizations, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Organization of America and the American Jewish Committee itself; each has historically associated itself with the hawkish side of the debate--and some have done so even when Israel took the more dovish side (the Jewish equivalent of being holier than the Pope). Forget for a moment the argument over whether what some call "the Lobby" is good or bad for America. My point is that it's bad for the Jews.
In large part the trouble lies with the antidemocratic structures of these organizations and the apathy of most Jews with regard to organized Jewish life. Major Jewish groups respond to the demands of their top funders and best-organized constituencies. Most American Jews, however, have little or nothing to do with these groups. According to the AJC survey, while 90 percent of Jews say being Jewish is either "very important" (61 percent) or "fairly important" (29 percent) in their lives, exactly half say they belong to a synagogue or temple. A fraction of this number belong to Jewish political organizations, and the number of major funders is but a tiny percentage of that. As with so much of American life, the far-right minority is better funded and better disciplined than the liberal majority.
Fault can also be found with lazy editors, reporters, producers and the like who invite neocon and other unrepresentative people to speak for Jews and Jewish values. Consider the most prominent Jewish voices in the punditocracy who regularly sound off on Israel, Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, etc. My list includes Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Seth Lipsky, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Richard Cohen, Mortimer Zuckerman, Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Goldberg, Lawrence Kaplan, Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz, Jonah Goldberg, David Gelernter, Ruth Wisse, David Brooks and David Frum. Most are Bush apologists, most supported the invasion of Iraq and most are sympathetic to the idea of an invasion of Iran. Not infrequently, leading Jewish pundits mock and ridicule the majority Jewish views. Irving Kristol, writing in Azure, attacks the "political stupidity" of American Jews. Gelernter, writing in The Weekly Standard, complains of Jewish political behavior as "a lesson in self-destructive nihilism."
Given the scare tactics the neocons routinely employ--from their frequent deployment of the intellectually vacuous term "Islamofascism," to Perle and Frum's warning that the nation's only choice is "victory or holocaust"--it is a remarkable tribute to the good sense of American Jewry that it remains a bastion of liberal humanism despite such naked attempts to manipulate longstanding fears and insecurities.
These pundits have every right to put forth their views, of course. It's long past time, however, for the mainstream media to recognize just how out of touch they are with the values of the American Jewish mainstream.
If not now, when?
NOTE: THE CONSENSUS AMONG TPM READERSHIP IS THAT READERS NOT ENGAGE, IN ANY WAY, WITH THE TROLL WHO CALLS HIMSELF DAVAI. ONE, HIS ENDLESS "WHY IS TERRITORY OCCUPED NOT USA INDIANS" QUERIES STUPIDLY CLUTTER THE SITE. Second, his postings on the Middle East, Obama, etc, are racist, I do not want vicious anti-Palestinian or anti-African American opinions attached to my posts. He won't stop but if you stop engaging with him, his purpose -- to destroy reasonable debate particularly on the Middle East -- is defeated. I ask this is a point of personal privilege. We are losing too many intelligent readers and posters thanks to this troll.
Eric is right on. My favorites are the liberals like Wasserman-Schultz, Emanuel, Wexler, Weiner, etc, who have no problem calling for impeachment, cutting off funds for the war, calling Bush and Cheney idiot war criminals, but support everything the government of Israel does.
I guess their slogan is "My Country, Right Or Wrong" but the country they refer to is Israel.
Maybe I'm being harsh. Maybe they just support Israel for the campaign money and it's not their problem if Israel is wiped out due to policies they support. They don't live there. But since they do care if THEY themselves are wiped out, they have to oppose this insane administration.
What hypocrites they are!
December 22, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Complete nonsense--Bob Wexler and the others would only be hypocrites if they sincerely opposed what Israel does. They don't--not because they need Jewish money to win elections--none of them have any significant political opposition. They truly support Israel's right to defend itself by whatever means the democratically elected government decides is necessary, period, full stop.
Rosenberg and Alterman represent a small, albeit vocal--especialy on sites like this one--minority within the American Jewish community. Most American Jews either support Israel or are indifferent to what it does to pretect its citizens,and not one credible poll of our community has shown that a majority of American Jews support unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, or taking down the security barrier and checkpoints, or unilaterally leaving the Golan Heights. In fact, there are as many American Jews---including virtually every single Orthodox and Lubavitch Jew in the United States-- who oppose Israel's security policies as not tough enough as who oppose them for being too tough.
December 22, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
On December 11, 2007 - 6:24pm mjrosenberg said:
I don't write to convince my fellow TMPers but to help reinforce them in their views
December 22, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe that a sane person can write something like that. I thought that we are beyond that.
Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman and David Brooks do NOT speak for Jews and Jewish values. They are not invited to write for nytimes because they are Jews or because nytimes editors think that they are "representative people".
Sorry MJ, but you are not going to replace Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman or David Brooks any time soon because you are "representative people".
December 22, 2007 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 22, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is changing though.The NIE report defeated all the Aipac plans.Now Bush is denouncing the settlements.The two neocon frontrunners in both parties are going down. Bad times for the lobby.
December 22, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still doubt the Obama, neocon's Democratic choice, will get nomination.
For the moment, at least, he is their shining hero. That is why the Weekly Standard ran a cover story in early December that provided a swooning rehash of Obama's life story and a series of masterful scenes from the campaign trail. ("He sounds like a man who knows what he's talking about and knows what he wants to do. There are no questions that catch him off guard, no issues he hasn't considered.") Written by Stephen Hayes, the admiring biographer of Dick Cheney and perhaps the last journalist on earth who still believes that Saddam Hussein was allied with al-Qaida, the flattering Obama profile raises none of the expected concerns over his eagerness to negotiate with the Iranians and other enemies of democracy. Why spoil the moment?
The wind behind that Hayes puff blew up into a bilious gust last week when William Kristol endorsed Obama in an editorial titled "Time to Move On ... From Hillary," urging Democrats to prevent the return of the Clintons to the center stage of American politics. He worked himself up into a lather of fake indignation over the clumsy attacks on Obama in recent days by Bill Shaheen, Bob Kerrey and Mark Penn. So did George Will, whose column excoriating Hillary Clinton invoked a very tired comparison with Nixon.
Evidently Will and Kristol assume that everyone has forgotten their own movement's penchant for filth during the Clinton White House years. Back then there was no limit to the jeering, lying assaults on the Clintons and everyone around them, including their young daughter. It was a poisonous atmosphere to which the likes of Kristol and Will contributed much pollution. For them, Obama's clean image is merely another weapon to be deployed.
December 22, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us compare MJR:
And one of this clique of critics that makes debates about the Middle East intolerable (and I refuse to quote or otherwise acknowledge Davai):
Does the American right lie just out of habit by now?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 22, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What this has to do with me?
In any case I don't see any lie in what Emet wrote:
December 22, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks to MJ for posting Eric's terrificly pointed column. One note to one of the commentators here though-Anthony Weiner, who is often considered especially by liberals in NYC to be a liberal Congressman himself, is , in fact, one of the most right wing congressmembers when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians. He was one of a handful of right wing congressmen to vote to cut off all aid to the Palestinians, including ngos and humanitarian aid. He has consistently voted against anything that peace-oriented groups like Americans for Peace Now (on whose board I sit) promote. It's not clear if he thinks he is reflecting the views of his own constituents in Brooklyn and Queens (he certainly is not expressing the views of those in at least part of his district)-but if he does run again for Mayor of NY where mayors are expected to have a foreign policy (as ridiulous as that may be since they can influence nothing), his views as well to the right of the liberal Jewish community on the Israel-Palestine issue should be remembered.
December 22, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't "progressive" put up or shut up.
If they think that Weiner or any other Jewish right wing liberal doesn't not represent views of his/her constituency, try to unseat them.
I know that Lantos is getting primary challenge, however the issue there is his age, not his I/P views. So, stop whining, To the Barricades, Comrades!
December 22, 2007 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may choose to judge a politician by a single issue. However, that does not make him a 'rightwing congressman.' As shown by Progressivepunch's vote calculations Weiner votes with the progressives 90.52% of the time whici make him 77/432 congresspeople.
December 27, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ's Request:
NOTE: THE CONSENSUS AMONG TPM READERSHIP IS THAT READERS NOT ENGAGE, IN ANY WAY, WITH THE TROLL WHO CALLS HIMSELF DAVAI. ONE, HIS ENDLESS "WHY IS TERRITORY OCCUPED NOT USA INDIANS" QUERIES STUPIDLY CLUTTER THE SITE. Second, his postings on the Middle East, Obama, etc, are racist, I do not want vicious anti-Palestinian or anti-African American opinions attached to my posts. He won't stop but if you stop engaging with him, his purpose -- to destroy reasonable debate particularly on the Middle East -- is defeated. I ask this is a point of personal privilege. We are losing too many intelligent readers and posters thanks to this troll.
December 22, 2007 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is apparent that MJ failed in his request to TPM management to get Davai banned.
While most TPM participants disagree with Davai's positions and granted that Davai has an irritatingly elliptical style of argumentation and an irritating sloppiness of spelling and grammar(giving the appearance at least, that English is not hsi native language), it is also true that Davai is both logical and retrieves information (such as the Andrew Sullivan quote re: Obama) for us. Both of these things are valuable: if an opinion cannot stand up to a logical attack based on facts it should be discarded.
Many of the responses to Davai on the otherhand do not go much beyond 'how dare you say that about MJ' which is a complete wast of time.
MJ presents his conclusion that Davai's postings on Obama are racist. I would appreciate an example.
Davai appears to believe that the Palestinians have brought much of their troubles upon themselves by using access to Israel to commit violence and then being stunned when that access is refused. MJ's position seems to be that Israel should risk its existence to seek peace since the Palestinians are currently suffering so much and because they were wronged in the initial foundation of Israel. If we are seeking to have the lamb lie down with the lion, the mid-east is not a convincing area in which to start. MJ charging that Davai is anti-Palestinian and stupid without backing it up with logic and examples is on a par with Davai charging that MJ is anti-semetic and crazy which Davai at least then tries to prove with counter examples. There is a real argument to be joined but it would help if MJ would engage directly and if both sides would drop the insults.
Madison I downrated you because you added nothing that could not be read in MJ's post.
December 22, 2007 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 22, 2007 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davai, stop taking over the thread. I don't know how many times I have to ask.
December 22, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is precisely the type of response to Davai which adds nothing to the discussion. It is absolutely contentless except for the desire of the poster to see Davai go away.
Yes Davai repeatedly asks why Israel has flourished and Palestine has not. It is a legitimate and important question. Given the Arab resources as a whole if they had done as well by the Palestinians as Israel has done by Jewish refugees we would be discussing an entirely different situation.
December 22, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Golis's bio states:
December 22, 2007 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry that the penney didn't drop as to who Golis is. He was just doing his job and needed to make it clear that Davai was on warning.
That said, the point remains that the responses to Davai were far more boring and contentless than his posts which often offered counter-examples or imported info from other sources or interesting twists of logic.
December 24, 2007 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
You didn't ask me not to take over MJ's thread.
You asked me not to insult MJ personally and I don't. If you suggest that a blogger restrict himself to so many comments per thread, I will accept such limitations.
In any case, MJ insulted me personally without any justifications, and I'm interested in your opinion about such behavior:
December 22, 2007 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Davai is not your name and you are a completely anonymous person, MJ can't personally attack you.
We don't know who the hell you are and dont want to know.
We just want you to stop stinking up TPMCafe.
December 22, 2007 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew.
"I don't know how many times I have to ask."
Part of the problem is that you ask instead of tell.
Believe me, I do have sympathy for your position as banning posters can be one of the most vexing and troubling aspects of running a forum that welcomes diversity (even if some of the commenters don't). It's a tough call and I applaud that fact.
When faced with a poster who is indifferent to persuasion of the benign kind and continues feeding his habit unabaited, the warnings need to be formalized and public; essentially notifying the offender he/she has x chances to modify specific behavior(s) and if the subsequent warnings are ignored, he's gone.
I've seen posters banned for defined periods of time and a few banned permanently from a forum roughly the same size as this one.
Davai's pattern in similiar to those in the later category in that he responds to warnings by dismissing them entirely; the rules don't apply to him.
Until they do.
December 22, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You provided more balance at the Cafe instead of allowing one person to post endless anti-Isral posts followed by the usual anti-Semitism and anti-Israel posts often devoid of both facts and thought Davai wouldn't post so often. It takes a lot of efforts to respond to the positions that are so anti-thetical to the well being of Jews.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 23, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel -- You should choose your words more carefully. You're saying that MJ is anti-Israel? You think he's against Israel's well-being? That he doesn't care about Jews being killed? You really need to examine the venom contained in your words. Josh
December 23, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh:
No arguments from me with respect to your intention to reduce the venom coming from posters. But your focus on Daniel and Daniel alone suggests, hopefully, that you have absolutely no idea what is written in the ordinary course in these threads, including what is written by the host of this particular thread whom you defend with the hardly profound suggestion that he doesn't wish to see Jews die. Now that is quite the criterion for hosting; what more can one ask for?
Bruce
December 28, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew, why don't you cowboy up and ban Davai?
December 23, 2007 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 22, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is richly ironic that what we have been seeing here at TPM Cafe recently may actually be a harbinger of what Tony Karon recently called a 'Jewish glasnost' at TomDispatch:
December 22, 2007 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There have always been leftwing Jews, such as a members of the American Communist party in the 1930s and the 1940s who for example eased up on Hilter after Stalin entered into a treaty with the Germans.
Given the general tenor on campuses that blame all the world's wrongs on the strong, the United States mainly, but Israel as a surrogate for another, and excuse all actions by the "weak" such as the Arabs it is not surprising that some Jews will sellout Israel in a heartbeat.
However, since Walt and Mearsheimer's and Carter's for that matter are anti-Semitic who cares that a handful of Jews would risk the lives of many Jews in order for themselves to feel righteous.
Given the huge numbers of Americans who support Isael, including Jews, the growth in Israel's economy as it partipates in the global economy there is just not much evidence for a serious turn against Israel in favor of the Arabs.
If the Palestinians demonstrated a serious renounciation of violence, against each other lef alone Israel, a two state solution would be closer at hand. And, most likely the "Jewish glasnost" crowd will be very disappointed in the outcome. Afterall why isn't Gaza a better place to live for its residents now that there are no settlements and Hamas rules it?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 23, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is definitely a change occurring. My comments with respect to the IP issues has not changed much since 2002. Then I was called an antisemite for them, this was from otherwise progressive individuals. I just don't see as much hostility.
December 22, 2007 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an extraordinary post concerning Davai. His points of view are just as legitimate as MJ Rosenberg's. Davai is not obscene or threatening--he just disagrees with you, and if you are losing readers, perhaps it is that your posts are not as incisive as can be found at other blogs on the TPM website.
December 22, 2007 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, to the casual observer (or sock puppet), our resident troll may appear to be rational in some postings, which is why I coined davai's Law--in order to always remember whom we are talking to:
December 22, 2007 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear LeftAhead,
Let me explain what I meant. MJ blamed Mark Penn for one of so called racists attacks on Obama by Clinton. Because Marl Penn is Jewish he called him neocon, that is derogatory term in Democratic party. I think this is antisemitic.
December 22, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"deregatory term in Democratic party"
that describes a certain political attitude to foreign policy, chiefly in the Middle East,
with most vocal proponents and opponents being Jewish.
Your term "antisemitic" just makes no sense.
The way I see it, some people, neocons being the most articulate among them, think that a state of perpetual "little war" is good for a nation, and that applies both for USA and Israel. A good nation has unity of spirit, vigilance etc., and if people believe to be at peace, they turn to seed.
Other people think just the opposite. Perpetual little war makes us small minded, paranoid, neglectful of our own social problems (a feature for some, obviously), etc.
The war party has a variety of ways to justify that peace is never good, but dehumanization of opponents, foreign and domestic, is a persistent motif. For many, this is exactly the feature, not a bug, one reason why we NEED a perpetual little war. Hence throwing "anti-semitism" that reaches hilarious proportions (I mean, Bush and Condi and the account of their appeasement of Arabs?).
Welcome to war party, davai, barkochba, bradthedad etc.
December 23, 2007 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people that brought war on Israel were Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and, indirectly, those who supported the insane Oslo policy of importing, financing and arming Arafat's terrorists like MJ and so many others. They are the War Party. They use Orwell's classic messages from the book "1984" which said "War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery" and, most of all, as I have repeatedly seen here at this site "Ignorance is Strength" (it was IIRC Peres who first called those killed in Arafat's wave of terror "victims of peace"-so you see I am not making this up).
It is us, the pro-Judea/Samaria settlement Jewish/Zionist movement that are the party of peace, because ONLY WE can ultimately make peace with the Arabs. The Arabs have only contempt for the "peacniks" I mentioned above, because they view them as spineless and having no principles. Only when the current ruling clique in Israel is replaced by the true Peace Camp I mentioned above is there any chance for real peace in the Middle East
December 24, 2007 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will go further. Not only is accusing Penn anti-Semitic, to suggest that attacks on Obama as being racist is just loser talk of leftwing racists. The American far left suffers from a virulent racism that prevents any serious discussion of even acutal facts. In this they mirror Bush and the rightwingeers they abhor so much. it is not surprising perhaps that the far left and the far right should meet on so many points of similarity.
It is impossible not to note that virtually every attack on you is simplistic, virtually devoid of facts and rarly addresses your point. There are people wraped in their self-righteousness, again like Bush, simply assume Israel is always wrong and no thinking is required.
I hope nitwits won't scare you off.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 23, 2007 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is puzzling: "The American far left suffers from a virulent racism that prevents any serious discussion of even acutal facts."
Racist against what/who? Repbulicans? Are Repubicans a racial group....? Oops, better not answer that.
I wonder if Sean Hannity is posting notes under a pseudonym.
December 26, 2007 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This shouldn't be puzzling. The leftwing racism that he is referring to is the belief that we cannot criticize anyone who is black if that criticism raises racist stereotypes. The reaction to discussion of the fact that Obama used cocaine for some period during highschool and/or college is a classic example.
(And snark -- there is existing evidence that conservatives are wired differently than the rest of us. They recognize deviations from the expected more slowly and they search out fewer sources of information.)
December 27, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is an excerpt of a column by Evelyn Gordon in the Jerusalem Post explaining why there is no possibility of there being an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and, unlike MJ's thesis, the reason is NOT "Israeli intransigence", but Arab unwillingness to make peace on ANY terms that any Israeli gov't could agree to.
----------------------------------------
Civil Fights: The devil is in the details
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Gordon , THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 19, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most widespread misconceptions about Israeli-Palestinian talks is that "everyone knows what a deal looks like;" all that is needed is for the parties to finally sit down and sign it. As The New York Times put it in an editorial last month, "the issue is less how peace would look than whether leaders … have the political courage to make decisions and move forward. The broad outlines of a deal … have been apparent since President Clinton's 2000 push." Haaretz similarly declared, in a front-page headline last Thursday, that "dramatic agreements on core issues" were achieved at the Taba talks in 2001.
The assumption behind such assessments is that the details are unimportant and easily resolved. Yet in this case, it turns out that the details are the core issues - and the disputes over these "details" reveal that in fact, nothing has been agreed at all.
The Haaretz report, for instance, quoted several "dramatic" points of agreement from a summary of the Taba talks prepared by negotiator Gilad Sher after they collapsed. The parties agreed to "adjustments" of the 1967 border "to meet Israel's demographic needs," a division of Jerusalem to make it the capital of both states, and a "balanced solution" for the refugees, with the Palestinians "prepared to show sensitivity" on this issue. That indeed looks likes progress - until you examine the details of the Sher document.
It turns out that while the Palestinians agreed to territorial exchanges in principle, they refused to concede any specific territory that Israel wanted. They objected to Israel keeping the settlement blocs - one of Israel's main reasons for wanting territorial exchanges - and generally insisted that any swaps total no more than 2.3 percent of the West Bank, well short of the 6 to 8 percent needed for the blocs. They refused to let Israel keep Latrun, which dominates the main Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway - a crucial issue for Israel, since gunfire from Latrun can and, pre-1967, often did shut down the entire highway. And they insisted that the "safe passage" connecting Gaza and the West Bank be under Palestinian sovereignty, thereby effectively severing Israel in two (Israel proposed Israeli sovereignty but Palestinian control). In short, there was no agreement on any actual border-related issue; there was merely a lofty declaration of principles.
THE SAME was true of Jerusalem: There was a lofty declaration about dividing the city, but no agreement on how to do so. Israel wanted territorial contiguity among the city's Jewish neighborhoods, which would turn Palestinian neighborhoods into enclaves; the Palestinians wanted Palestinian territorial contiguity and Jewish enclaves. Nor was agreement reached on how to secure this patchwork nightmare. In the Old City, both sides claimed the Armenian Quarter (though they agreed on the other quarters). Finally, there was no agreement on the Temple Mount: Israel wanted either "ambiguous" or shared sovereignty and some form of joint administration; the Palestinians insisted that the mount be entirely theirs, with Israel having no rights whatsoever in Judaism's holiest site.
As for the refugees, it turns out that Palestinian "sensitivity" did not include forfeiting "the right of return," a clear Israeli red line; they demanded recognition of the "right" of all refugees and their descendants to relocate to Israel. Nor did their "sensitivity" encompass the question of responsibility: While Israel agreed to accept partial responsibility for the refugee problem, the Palestinians insisted that it accept sole responsibility - a clear distortion of the historical facts, since there would have been no refugee crisis had five Arab armies, backed by Palestinian irregulars, not attacked the nascent state of Israel in 1948. In short, there was no agreement at all on this issue.
Nor was there any agreement on perhaps the most essential issue of all: Palestinian recognition of the Jewish people's right to a state in this land, parallel to Israel's recognition of the Palestinians' right to statehood. The Palestinians adamantly refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation-state. This refusal is not mere rhetoric; it implies that instead of living in peace with the Jewish state, the Palestinians intend to continue seeking its eradication via other means: inciting and financing activity against Israel's Jewish identity by Israeli Arabs, delegitimizing it in international forums, and so forth.
NEEDLESS TO say, these Palestinian positions have changed not one iota since 2001. Prior to last month's Annapolis conference, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated that land swaps must not exceed 2.3 percent of the West Bank. He also reiterated the Palestinians' refusal to acknowledge any Jewish rights on the Temple Mount. And even at Annapolis itself - that alleged dawn of a bright new era of Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation - he did not make do with general statements about solving the refugee problem; he insisted in his speech that any solution be based on UN Resolution 194, which Palestinians interpret as recognizing the "right of return."
---- cut rest of article
December 22, 2007 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL at this point: "and, unlike MJ's thesis, the reason is NOT "Israeli intransigence", but Arab unwillingness to make peace on ANY terms that any Israeli gov't could agree to."
Hmm...so if the Palestinians don't agree to peace on terms that Israel can agree to, that makes them intransigent, but if Israel will not agree to peace on terms that the Palestinian can agree to, that makes them reasonable....?
It reminds me of the Oscar Wilde quote: "I think about myself all the time. And I expect other people to do so too. That's called sympathy."
December 26, 2007 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've trolled this because you are just playing with words: the agreement that Israel cannot live with is a peace which is simply a means of enabling the Palestinians to destroy Israel later.
Actions have consequences: They {the Palestinaians] refused to let Israel keep Latrun, which dominates the main Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway - a crucial issue for Israel, since gunfire from Latrun can and, pre-1967, often did shut down the entire highway. And they insisted that the "safe passage" connecting Gaza and the West Bank be under Palestinian sovereignty, thereby effectively severing Israel in two (Israel proposed Israeli sovereignty but Palestinian control). In short, there was no agreement on any actual border-related issue; there was merely a lofty declaration of principles.
Willingness to recognize the right of the other to exist unthreatened is a bare minimum and the Palestinians seem unwilling to even promise this -- instead proposing that Israel accept conditions with the potential to destroy Israel.
The Palestinians could form a state even if the right of return is never recognized in any way. Israel can not exist as the Jewish refuge if the right of return means that the Palestinians can bring in enough people to over turn the state.
December 27, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care what nonsense Clinton babbles about, Hafez Assad was never interested in a peace agreement with Israel. Yes, he wants to have some sort of low-level dialogue with the US because of Syria's interests in Lebanon, so they will, from time to time, in order to get the US's attention, talk about willingness to negotiate with Israel, but there is no substance to it. Syria is much more interested in controlling Lebanon than in getting the Golan Heights back. Syria's alliance with Iran and with HIZBULLAH is very important to Syria and is paying off handsomely. Syria had at the time of Barak/Clinton and has today NO REASON to break this alliance and become part of the supposedly "pro-US" bloc in the Middle East. If they were to join it, they would have to reduce the meddling in Lebanon, stop their assassinations of anti-Syrian politicians and cut off HIZBULLAH, none of which they have any interest in doing.
Syria is controlled by the Assad family which belongs to the Alawite religious minority. Alawitism is a break-off from Shi'ism and is thus viewed as a double-heresy by the majority Sunnis in Syria. This group is hated and if they ever gave up power, they would be subject to massive repression, just as we happening in Iraq with the sudden removal of the Ba'athist/Sunni ruling clique led by Saddam Hussein. The Assad/Alawite group in power NEEDS an ongoing conflict with Israel in order to rally support in their badly fractionated country. Making peace with Israel would greatly endanger the Assad/Alawite regime's control of the country.
So, to repeat, I don't care what Clinton says, Hafed Assad had no interest in making peace with Israel. Barak offered him all the Golan Heights, he refused to take it demanding even more territory than they had before the 1967 Six-Day War.
December 23, 2007 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is false. Barak never offered Assad the Golan. He offered the possibility of large of the Golan under limited Syrian sovereignty and but not--and this is revealing about Barak's real intentions--the entire shoreline of the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias), thereby denying Syria access to the most important water source they need. This was an offer made in utter bad faith by Israel. And by the way, notice how Israel is building on Annapolis by starting NEW settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. More evidence of bad faith....
December 25, 2007 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding that the entire Kinneret was in the British mandated territory of Palestine. If that is true, it is doubtful that the Syrians had any right to water from there. Before the Six-Day War, Israel controlled a narrow strip of beach around the part of the Kinneret that Syria was near. Assad wanted to eliminate that strip. Why should Israel agree to give him more than he had before 1967 considering that the British had the same thing during the Mandate period, if I am correct?
December 25, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your logic is as curvy as a pretzel. You are now trying to argue that Syria didn't own the Golan to the Sea of Galilee before 1967? Ah, right. And there were no Palestinians in living in modern-day Israel before 1948...And Jim Morrison is running a radio station in Ghana....
December 25, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 1923 an agreement between the United Kingdom and France established the border between the British Mandate of Palestine and the French Mandate of Syria. The British handed over the southern Golan Heights to the French in return for the northern Jordan Valley. The border was re-drawn so that both sides of the Jordan River and the whole of the Sea of Galilee, including a 10-metre wide strip along the northeastern shore, were made a part of Palestine. [3] The 1947 UN Partition Plan put this territory area inside the Jewish state.
Wikipedia.
December 27, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. You cite Wikipedia, which is an informal encyclopedia, riddled with Hasbara nonsense. Anyone can post there....giggle, giggle.
So let's recap:
For your argument to work....
1. Britain and France have the right to set Israel's borders. (But actually, they don't.)
2. The UN Partition Plan properly sets Israel's borders. (But actually, it doesn't.)
3. The current borders of Israel follow neither. (But that doesn't matter.)
4. Syria forfeits its historical rights because others say so....
I'm getting really confused.
December 28, 2007 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was your disinformation campaign that triggered my quick resort to Wikepedia. Either that strip of land had been assigned to Israel or to Syria by the UN partition plan. It shows no bad motive on the part of Israel to retain its rights as assigned by the UN. If you have any information that this land was not granted to Israel please provide it.
Your other arguments are distractions from your failure to stick to the facts.
The fight in the Mideast is essentially over the fact that a net 200,000 Palestinians were forced to move across a river.
December 29, 2007 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is false. Barak never offered Assad the Golan. He offered the possibility of large of the Golan under limited Syrian sovereignty and but not--and this is revealing about Barak's real intentions--the entire shoreline of the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias), thereby denying Syria access to the most important water source they need. This was an offer made in utter bad faith by Israel. And by the way, notice how Israel is building on Annapolis by starting NEW settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. More evidence of bad faith....
December 25, 2007 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Starting new settlements or building in exsiting settlements? Do you know or care?
December 27, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
A distinction without a difference...unless, of course, you support the settlements. And if you think there is no difference, then why did Condi complain about it?
You know, being sneaky is not a virtue.
December 28, 2007 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Clinton says "in foreign affairs, polls are often useless". What does he care if Israel is giving up sovereign territory? What does he care that thousands of Israeli would be uprooted from their homes? To him that is "foreign affairs". He is the one who called Barak his "new toy", the toy that was supposed to get Clinton a Nobel "Peace" Prize which was supposed to override people's memories of his impeachment.
Perish the thought that politicians should care about public opinion, especially on matters of supreme national importance. Of course, no statesman will base his policies purely on polls or general public opinion. MJ is always quoting polls (wrongly) in order to persuade people that the policies which he supports have majority support among American Jews (which they don't). He says that Barak should have "ignored the polls". Unlike what MJ claims, things would have been far WORSE had Israel given up the Golan. Sharon ignored the polls in destroying Gush Katif and look at the mess he brought upon Israel. Sometimes the people are right.
December 23, 2007 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
There seems to be a great debate over what the Syrian regimes real goals are. They do seem to be interested in a defacto occupation of Lebanon which they did for 25 years. I wonder when we see that denounced?
I do think Clinton is right about foreign policy and the polls. However there are two issues. Syria is not truly a foreign policy issue for Israel. It is a national security issue. The other problem is that as a Parliamentary sysem with many small parties, and often coalition governments Israeli leaders are much more prone to shifts in popular opinion than American presidents.
I do find it interesting how accomodating the far left is to dictatiorship if it is African or Arab. Perhaps there such be greater care about accusing people of racism. People in glass houses as the cliche goes.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 23, 2007 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not really.
December 23, 2007 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the Bush Administation, not the "far left," is very accomodating to Arab dictatorships in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Facts are inconvenient, aren't they.
December 25, 2007 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says:
Nothing more needs to be said about this gang.
December 23, 2007 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, they are Jews, nothing more needs to be said about this gang
December 23, 2007 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Davai, you told me you were banned. I assume that this post was the final straw. I am not entirely sure what you were driving at but I have been turning over in my mind ever since MJ posted this list whether the media was consulting these people as prominent Jews or as prominent Neocons or prominent in their respective fields. I could probably devise a list of prominent Christian neocons but people would think I was being ridiculous to then claim that this was a false or lazy way to represent Christians in the media.
December 23, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, it isn't my list. It is Eric Alterman's.
December 23, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification but since you posted his article what is your position on Eric's use of that list?
December 23, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neo-Cons are rightly criticized because of their hideous ideas, not because a lot of them are Jews. (Neo-Cons are a minority among Jews.) Implying otherwise is like saying people who are put off by pedaphile priests just hate Catholics.
December 25, 2007 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
While public pontificators like Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak and Ron Paul get to cherry-pick the Jewish names for their little lists of neocons, raising the issue of antisemitic implications out loud will often be flagged for stifling debate. "Heads we win, tails you lose" is very convenient when you get to make the rules.
December 25, 2007 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your complaint ignores an obvious problem: The famous neo-cons by and large are Jewish, e.g., Podhoretz, Ledeen, Wolfowitz, etc. The gentile neo-cons like Newt Gingrich and William Bennett are primarily known for being a former Speaker of the House and as a Self-Appointed Monitor of Virtues (and ironically, an inveterate gambler).
Notice that I mentioned that fact in a prior post that most American Jews are not neo-cons.
December 25, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
mythbuster,
A simple statement of fact that really has nothing at all to do with the rhetorical power otherwise available to demagogues across the political spectrum -- and cold comfort for the rest of us liberal Jews and Democratic Zionist sympathizers, besides. While "gentile neo-cons like Newt Gingrich and William Bennett are primarily known for being a former Speaker of the House and as a Self-Appointed Monitor of Virtues," Podhoretz, Ledeen, Wolfowitz, etc., remain as you say primarily known for being neocon Jews. But no discussion of any antisemitic implications can happen as that will inevitably, immediately and conveniently (not to mention ironically) be condemned as an attempt to stifle debate. So it goes.
December 26, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or this gang of Jews either...why say more, seen one you seen 'em all, right dava!.
December 26, 2007 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
To all the davai enablers reacting to his posts;
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
December 23, 2007 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Buckle down Winsocki, buckle down,
You can win Winsocki if you knuckle down....
December 23, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the replies to Davai bore you it is easy to see who is being replied to and to skip those posts.
December 23, 2007 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, how do you skip the posts when there are so many?
Imagine looking through a termite mound to find the Queen and having someone telling you to skip those termites.
December 23, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW, I promise that when I reply to Davai, you'll be the first to know. But even all these urgings to ignore him are part of the extended dialogue with him I have to try to ignore. It's all well and good to urge discipline, but I don't know why Andrew just doesn't get him out of here.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 23, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"First they came for Davai and I didn't object because.........."
December 23, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've just received a private email from Davai
that s/he can't post anymore. I object , sadly.
December 23, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
flavius,
many years ago the Neo Nazis wanted to march in Skokie Ill. I supported their right to march as I support davai's right to post.
December 24, 2007 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
John,
I also supported their right to march. Since I didn't live there, that might be considered a bit chickenhawkish, but I have gone in the face of American Nazi Party members in DC. (smiling slightly about how silly they can look to someone that knows both more German and more Nazi history than they do...they were cringing when I shrieked Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht! Unterhund! at them.
Still, there is a difference in the media involved. One could not go to the march. One could not face the Nazis.
But when the Nazis, or the Little Sisters of the Poor, come through a residential neighborhood with a loudspeaker truck, in most places they will run afoul of a noise ordnance. That's the situation in an electronic medium where there is no filtering: someone can monopolize the channel.
I don't know if it's just Firefox, but I can no longer suppress low-rated comments. That alone would have helped with conversation here, but He Who Shall Not Be Named drowned things out.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 24, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
define irony;
my defending neo Nazis IN America 20 odd years after I fought the SOBs in Europe to keep them from coming TO America :-)
December 24, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever read Spider Robinson's "God is an Iron", based on the premise that if a burglar is one who commits burglary, an iron is one who commits...
Probably apropos of not much, Speer wrote of a time he was walking through the Chancellery with Hitler, and Hitler sort of nudged him and said "don't turn around, but you see that man over there?"
Out of the corner of his eye, Speer saw an apparent janitor.
Hitler whispered "he makes me nervous".
"But mein Fuehrer, why don't you fire him?"
Speer said Hitler sort of huffed and said "have you ever tried to fire a German civil servant?"
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 24, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
:-) :-)
December 25, 2007 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I don't need a blog mommy to protect me against unpleasant characters.
December 24, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Illinois Nazis? I *hate* Illinois Nazis--Hit it, Elwood!
-the late great 'Joliet' Jake Blues
December 24, 2007 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
left,
great movie, along with Animal House. I must have seen each 5 times. :-)
December 25, 2007 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
jhaber writes:
You are correct, (sigh) my apologies.
December 23, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, MJ .I don't want to see davai either banned or selectively deleted (except of course for libellous or near libellous ad hominums) or even quarantined.
That's not who we are. If she makes a point worth considering,let's consider it. If he commits a factual error, correct it. And if ,mirabile dictu , davai forces us to confront an uncomfortable counter argument that's what it's all about, baby.
As for you. You should ignore him. Simply maintaining your complex position makes you a national asset.That's enough. You're not required to do any more. Don't let him throw you off stride. That way she wins . And we all lose.
December 23, 2007 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
et tu, flavius?
By the way, you should have been at the bacchanal. WOW!
December 23, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your attack on Davai who seems the only persons to raise questions about your is very clever is rather disingenuous.
What Alterman and you don't grasp is that most American Jews don't want to see lots of Jews murdered. Therefore they support a two state solution between Israel and Arabs who do not plan on any agreement merely being a way station to taking Tel Aviv and Haifa. For leftwingers who excuse any act by Arabs and wish Israel to take vat risks for little gain are likely to be a very unhappy group.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 23, 2007 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a hysterical fool you are. Both MJ and Alterman have Holocaust survivors in their families, as well as having relatives who were killed. Your language is about as disrespectful to those who were killed as anything I've seen.
Daniel Greenbaum gets Oscar for mocking the Holocaust.
December 23, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rarely see such rabid ad hominens from davai, who admittedly, is a difficult case. But I do see them from you. Stuff like this is the classic troll kind of thing that makes threads deteriorate and is banned in most moderated forums, where you are told to attack the argument and not the commenter. In my interpretation, it's what the zero ratings were invented for, by the Scoop software people: not to punish opinions you don't like, but the zero makes the comment invisible to those who might be tempted to participate in the silly emotional brawl you're trying to start by name calling.
December 23, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a post which he deleted MJ talked about the suffering of his wife's people as refugees in a camp and asked our pity for the Palestinians.
He did not address the difference between how Israel worked to rescue Jewish refugees and the Arabs worked to intern the Palestinians. If the Arab nations exerted as much effort to help the Palestinians as Israel has done for Jewish refuges the Palestinians would be flourishing.
Hannah Arendt noted that once you recognized that centuries old Jewish communities fled the surrounding Arab states, the net balance of population change was 200,000. This means that if a right of return is recognized for the Jews who fled the Arab states and used to offset the right of return for Palestinians who
fled, the rights of both people can be held in equl dignity and the problem becomes something of a more manageable size.
December 24, 2007 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really need to call out the intellectual dishonesty of this post. Outside the USA and Israel, no one seriously questions the Palestinians status as refugees. As a result, they are entitled to return to their land of origin, i.e., Palestine. By dishonestly arguing that Arab States should be giving more help to the Palestinians, you are essentially shifting the the moral debt from Zionists to Israel's neighbors. Put another way, it's like Milosevic claiming that the problem wasn't the Serbs emptying Kosovo of ethnic Albanians; it was the "selfish" Macedonians didn't take all the Albanians in.
Furthermore, this is the ultimate "heads we win, tails you lose" argument for Zionism: If the Arabs took all the Palestinians in as refugees and made them citizens, then the Zioinists would say there are no refugees! Of course, the Western countries that sponsored Israel could take in all the Israelis. Notice, how no one ever floats that idea...because when it is applied to people like "us," its immorality is clear.
December 24, 2007 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are they more entitled to "refugee status" today, after 60 years, than the millions of ethnic Germans forced out of the the USSR (East Prussia), Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland), Poland (East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania) and other places? Why are they ore entitled to "refugee states" today, after 60 years, than the 700,000 Jews forced out of the Arab states? Why are they more entitled to "refugee status" than the millions of refugees created by the Partition of the Indian Subcontinent?
It was the Palestinian/Arab leadership that started the war that led to them becoming refugees, just like the German refugee situation was created by German aggression against the countries I listed.
December 25, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Take off the tin foil and try to learn something about international law. Appararently, you are unfamiliar with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And you have to be. You can't spew this piffle if you have actual knowledge.
P.S. If the Jews who left Arab countries really consider themselves refugees, then I wholeheartedly support their right to return. No exceptions. If they don't want to return to their countries of origin, they are called emmigrants.
You are playing hasbara word games.
December 26, 2007 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
An "emigrant" is someone who voluntarily leaves one country, takes his property with him or disposes of it for a fair return and then goes to another country of his choosing. Many of the Jews of the Arab countries who fled to Israel or elsewhere as as result of the creation of the State of Israel were frequently actually terrorized or at least under threat and dispossesed of their property. I think this qualifies them for the term "refugees".
December 26, 2007 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Checkmate!
I support the right of Jews to return to their countries of origin, if they so choose. However, whatever choice they want to make is utterly, totally, and completely irrelevant to the rights of Palestinian refugees. I love the way you fell into that trap.
P.S. Isn't this the part where you remind us that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem met with Hitler? To which I would say: When Hitler committed suicide Irish PM Eamonn de Valera made a point of going to the German Embassy and signing a book of condolence. The point? There isn't one. I was just foreshadowing your likely response. (harles Lindburgh also met with Hitler. I guess that means he didn't really fly across the Atlantic either....)
"
December 26, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel had no obligation to take care of Jewish refugees from elsewhere. They did good and they did well.
If the right to which you are legally entitled is not going to work you should try to find something that will. May I remind you both of the situation of the American Indians entitled to the entire continents of both South and North America and of the old saw -- He was right, dead right and just as dead as if he was wrong.
The United States is almost completely composed of immmigrants and their descendants. The surrounding Arab countries seem to feel extremely imposed on if they are required to assimilate any Palestinians.
There is such a thing as abstract rights -- there is also the question of what makes a reasonable situation for people to live in.
If the Palestinians are hoping for the world to vindicate their rights I suggest they consult the dead Jews of Germany.
December 27, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
DanielGree said:
WOW, if MJ and Eric Alterman don't grasp that they must really be stupid!
December 24, 2007 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha. Well, thanks to Daniel G, I have begun to grasp it.
Although, I have to say, with the exception of the neocons, most Jews don't want to see lot's of anybody murdered. This may also apply to most Christians, etc, again with the exception of neocons.
(See Podhoretz,N)
December 24, 2007 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
is it not true that most, if not all, on that list not only supported the invasion of Iraq but pushed for it?
If that is true, then doesn't it follow that those on that list had little concern over those who were going to die, Jews and non Jews in the US Military and Iraqi civilians and military?
Norman Podhoretz wants to bomb Iran. I wonder what he thinks about those who will die in Iran, or the numbers of Americans and Jews who will be "murdered" if we do.
December 24, 2007 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, Yes but I'd limit the list to the real hardcore neocons. The rest may have some compassion; the hardcore give ample demonstration that they lose no sleep whatsoever over the dead and injured. So, for me, the list is:
Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Seth Lipsky, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz, David Frum and, in capital letters, DOUGLAS FEITH.
December 24, 2007 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this a generatinal issue? In my World Affairs Council, the Zionist "Hawks" are usually 60+. That is the group emotionally gripped by the "Munich" analogy.
For those of us born after 1960, we are more motivated by Vietnam, ie., the decades-long-currency-and-budget-destroying proxie conflict.
December 24, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
um, make that MJ, not Howard.
good point, agreed.
December 25, 2007 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says:
"the hardcore give ample demonstration that they lose no sleep whatsoever over the dead and injured. So, for me, the list is:
Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Seth Lipsky, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz, David Frum and, in capital letters, DOUGLAS FEITH."
IMO, all of the above are prissy big mouth nancy boys compared to the living incarnation of true evil, Elliot Abrams. His machinations are designed to cause chaos and violence.
December 25, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice dodge. As you well know what Danial G was driving at is that you advocate policies which he believes would result in the deaths of many people in Israel and possibly the destruction of the state. He believe that the majority of Jews here oppose these policies for the same reason.
December 27, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since this has deteriorated to moderation issues, I'd like to put in my two cents that I very much appreciate bar_kochba's participation on MJ's threads, not because I agree with his world view (I don't), but because they include invaluable detail and analysis about how people like him think about these issues. I actually look forward to them, I want to know his "spin" on it, and he usually manages to keep a civil tone even though others are taunting him. His commentary helps me understand the whole situation, that's invaluable.
Hence I am at a loss to why others would want to muzzle his opinions with zeroes rather than learn from them. Is that a way to any peace process, to ignore or censor those with serious but different opinions? Shouldn't you want to understand what he's thinking?
I really really wish that others who feel the same would help me uprate his comments when other members zero him, instead of being afraid of being branded as agreeing with him.
After more than a few years of regular participation on forums like this, I'm getting really really tired of the "I'm afraid to support this guy's interesting commentary because then the others will think I agree with him." Enough! That's childish, high school stuff. If people label me as agreeing with him, I give a damn. I want to read interesting commentary, not echo chambers. It's long past the time the forum blogosphere grow up and out of high school clique mode and stop chasing away interesting people.
December 23, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the support!
December 23, 2007 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me add that while I rarely agree with you, I do appreciate your writing. It gives me insight into perspective I would not otherwise have.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 23, 2007 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davai has been banned from this site, apparently. I hope MJ is now happy; he has exclusive ranting rights on this page, with a cheering section thrown in for good measure.
Even at AOL, they were more enlightened than you, sir.
December 25, 2007 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
AOL was a moderately early entry to online discussion media for the general public, later than ARPANET mailing lists and USENET, but still before general blogs. It has its own culture. Blogs, especially affiliated with news organizations, have another.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and it guarantees freedom of the press. It does not, however, guarantee unlimited freedom of speech on someone else's press. I cannot demand that the New York Times print a statement of mine, not can I demand that of Josh Marshall. In like manner, I can control what appears on a website I own.
In the physical public sphere, there remain minimal restrictions on speech, which, arguably, are based around an assumption that while person A may have freedom of expression, person B is not required to listen to that expression. If a sound truck for the Little Sisters of the Poor comes blaring through a residential neighborhood at 3AM, its free speech rights are apt to fall afoul of reasonable noise ordnances.
If this were a mailing list or newsgroup, for which reasonable filtering capability existed in reader software, Davai would have been less of a problem. Unfortunately, even the "hide low-rated posts" seems to have stopped working here, at least with Firefox. Davai, and responses he generated, tended to drown out other commentary.
I don't always agree with MJ, but I expect to be able to address his points on a thread that emanates from one of his posts. Davai was always free to create blog posts of his own here, or discussion table posts. Instead, he chose constant confrontation, principally but not exclusively against one poster.
Essentially, assuming he was banned, it was for chronic violations of the site's equivalent of a noise ordnance. He could have changed his behavior in any of a number of ways, but he chose not to do so. I don't consider electronic media to be a blank check for whatever individual behavior one wants to do at someone else's facility--it's trivially easy to set up one's own blog. Davai didn't want to do that, and, if he was banned after repeated warnings, I applaud that as something that will help other discussion.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 25, 2007 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is very difficult to determine if a poster is a troll or just a very determined outspoken commentator (at least at the beginning). But for me at least one very telling sign is when the "you people are just an echo chamber and don't want to listen to ideas/criticisms that make you uncomfortable" stuff starts - at that point I set the Troll Probability Rating to 98% with a bullet. I am well aware of the davi's ideas; I held many of them myself in the late 70s/early 80s and then lived for a while in a pressure cooker where they were constantly reinforced by experts.
I know them, I understand them. It is just that sometime between 1995 and 2000 I started to think that maybe they weren't such definitive, overwhelming ideas after all. And that maybe, just maybe, there was something to the idea that the Palestinians have gotten a raw deal. It doesn't mean I think the modern state of Israel should be destroyed, or that Jewish people anywhere should suffer new pogroms/holocausts. It does mean that it is going to take a very well-thought-out, very persuasive, very calm version of davi's theories to get me back on that track. Davi gave no such presentation and started very very early on the eristic subversion, pretzel logic, and counterattacks.
Sorry, he was a troll. And as far as I can see he had at least 2 sockpuppets here as well so I am sure he will be back in MJ's treads fairly soon.
sPh
December 25, 2007 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHY ISRAEL should seize Hamas ceasefire offer. From Ma'ariv.
IT'S A HUDNA ALL RIGHT
Ma'ariv (p. B6) by Kobi Niv (op-ed) -- Let's say you live in an
apartment building and you have an ongoing, major and violent dispute
with one of the neighbors, who has even declared that he will not rest
until he kicks you out of the building. And over all these years, he
dumps garbage at your front door, and you smear doo-doo on his door, and
he slashes your tires and you break his windshield wipers, and he slaps
your little girl and you punch his little boy, and so on and so forth,
for decades.
And then, after years of hostility and mutual bloodletting, suddenly
he offers, by means of a common acquaintance, a cease-fire or a truce
for five or seven or 13 years. "I won't make peace with him because I
can't stand his stinking face," he told your common acquaintance, "but
I'm willing, throughout the period of the truce, for him not to throw
dog pee on me and I won't throw cat doo on him and we won't break
windshield wipers and we won't slash tires or anything else. In other
words-we still won't talk to each other, but without violence." What
would you think, in this case, would be the right answer to give to this
bad neighbor of yours?
Would you reply, "as long as he does not declare our full right to
live in the building, we will continue to beat each other's children
until he says that he is willing for us to live here"? Or would you
inform him, by means of the common acquaintance, "we are only willing to
have a full and complete peace, one that includes kisses and hugs, and
nothing less?" Or perhaps you would declare "we are only willing to have
eternal peace, not even two weeks less than that"? Or perchance you
would say, "we can't make peace with this neighbor because we've already
made peace with a different neighbor," or maybe you would declare "we
will not discuss a truce with him because we know him and he doesn't
mean what he says"? Or would you say, "let him first stop throwing
things at us, and then we'll talk"? Or maybe "first let him start
fasting on Yom Kippur, then we'll talk"?
The answer is obvious. Under these circumstances, any reasonable
person, someone whose soul hasn't been screwed because of the animosity
and who hasn't become enamored of the mutual bloodletting, would reply
to the bad neighbor-indirectly or directly or whatever-that he is
definitely ready to agree to a truce of three, 13 or 20 years. Without
conditions and without reservations. Because according to any reasonable
logic, two weeks and half of a peace is preferable to two and a half
years of war. Not to mention that a little peace could lead to a lot of
peace, while a little war could always lead to a big war.
And what will happen, you ask, if despite the agreement, the bad
neighbor continues to throw soiled diapers at us? Nu, we can always
throw fresh turds at him again, and restore life in our building to what
we've come to view as normal, i.e., unending hostility and feuding. So
there's nothing to be scared of and nothing to worry about.
December 25, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, how many cease-fires did HAMAS sign with FATAH during their fighting in the Gaza Strip? I recall something like 4 or 5.
Then, of course, there was the national unity gov't agreement the Saudis midwifed between the two sides, including contributing a lot of money. How long did that last? IIRC it was something like 3 months (please correct me if I am wrong).
So much for your "hudna".
December 25, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And is that more or less the number of "targeted killings" i.e, IDF terrorist acts, committed within the last few weeks? Frankly, racking up incidences of Israeli bad faith is about as exhausting as counting the number of factual errors in Alan Dershowitz's books. But we must soldier on....
December 28, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
HARUMPH!, There he goes again, pushing peace plans.
December 26, 2007 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a peace plan -- an appeasement plan. Hitler was willing to talk as long as he was allowed to re-arm. The 'cute' anology of feuding neighbors above would have been more accurate if the Israeli neighbor had blocked deliveries to the Palestinian neighbor who was assembling the parts necessary for a bomb and the Palestinian wanted the deliveries unblocked as part of the 'truce.'
December 27, 2007 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct, any dealings with the Palestinians is appeasement!
Any dealings with Iran is appeasement!
Any dealings with Syria is appeasemnt!
Any dealings with Jordan is appeasement!
Any dealings with Egypt is appeasement!
December 28, 2007 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't Hitler references the training wheels of political argument? Or are they developmental milestones akin to losing your virginity, having your first beer, and...making your first Hitler reference? Oh, the nostalgia of youth. (Cue the Led Zeppelin.)
December 28, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The all-encompassing answer would be losing one's virginity after drinking Dunkelbier on the Graf Zeppelin, toasting Grofaz between thrusts and swallows.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 28, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
When your ears get dry, let me know.
December 29, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg:
It seems a measured cease fire without seminal differences settled should include a status quo provision, that is, a ban on Hamas arms buildup or re-supply in exchange for an end to some long term spoiler behavior by Israel that would help improve Palestinians' economic lot. A failure to abide would be a breach of peace.
December 27, 2007 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just heard an interesting interview on Israel Radio's morning newstalk program hosted by Yaron Dekel. He interviewed Alon Liel, who was a senior official in the Foreign Ministry. He is a Labor Party man, friend of Yossi Beilin, Leftist, supporter of "Peace" and was quoted approvingly here by MJ some time ago. The subject of the discussion was Israel/Egyptian relations (Barak is visiting Mubarak today). He said something that shocked Dekel, and I quote "The Egyptians DO NOT want there to be a Palestinian state". Dekel asked why. Liel replied "creation of a Palestinian state and having Israel at peace is a threat to Egypt and the whole Arab world which Egypt's seeks to lead". Dekel pointed out that Israel views its most important connections as being with the US and Europe. Liel pointed out that is true but the Egyptians don't see it that way.
Liel then pointed out that Israel needs to appoint a new ambassador to Egypt but nobody wants the job. Dekel asked why. Liel replied that everyday in the Arabic-language newspapers Israel is attacked in the strong, antisemitic terms, the ambassador is called a spy or some such thing. The ambassador can not walk around outside the embassy compound freely , there is suffocating security, and what is most interesting, is they can not have any contact with educated Egyptians who boycott any meetings with him. He can not even go to a local doctor or dentist and must be flown to Israel for these things, since the professional guilds will expel any Egyptian who has contact with Israelis. He said the same applies in Jordan as well.
We see that this explains Egypt's actions regarding Gaza...they want HAMAS to be powerful there, they like seeing the split between FATAH and HAMAS. Tie this in to the article by Danny Rubinstein I posted last week where he discussed the collapse of the Palestinian Authority and it becomes clear to all that the "Palestinians" could not negotiate any sort of peace agreement with Israel. They are not free-agents. They are pawns in the big-power games of the Arab states, and we heard here that Egypt does not want any peace agreement at all.
TIME TO DROP THE ILLUSIONS ABOUT THE "PEACE PROCESS". The status quo is what is and what will be into the foreseeable future. Israel must work on its own to try to improve the situation on the ground with the Arabs of Judea/Samaria/Gaza and try for a long-term relaxation of tensions. There is no other options.
December 26, 2007 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar.
For you to claim that the Palestinians are pawns in "the big-power games of the Arab States" is an absurdity. Egypt, the KSA and Jordan have little influence over process as is amply illustrated time after time. They're pissant pygmies compared to the strategerists in Washington.
The real players in this game are DC and TA. It would be refreshing if you could discuss who is responsible for destroying the unity government between Fatah and Hamas. Come on, bar, you know damn well the Bush administration and other fabulous American friends of Israel were behind that dissolution as well as the orders to Abbas and Olmert et al to refuse to talk to Hamas and Syria.
Alon Liel recognizes where the juice is and advocates Israel following her own interests rather than Washingtons':
"Much has been said about President George W. Bush's fondness for those who comply with American authority, and his loathing for those who defy him. One of Bush's favorite regional players is Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis are not an important player as far as the Arab-Israeli conflict is concerned".
......
"Saudi Arabia may be an important player in the Gulf area and in the global oil market, but in the Arab-Israeli conflict it is only a guest".
.....
"A diplomatic settlement that only Abbas agreed to - without Hamas's support - would be like the peace treaty Israel signed with Amin Gemayel's government in Lebanon in 1984."
.........
"IT IS in Israel's interest to revive the dialogue between Fatah and Hamas, just as Russia and Egypt suggest, and not to contribute to a wider rift between the Palestinian organizations, as Washington proposes."
.........
"With the conference coming up, Israel should be aware of the contradiction between its own interests and those of the US. If Israel blindly follows Washington's policy it can expect prolonged conflicts with Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria.
Washington may be content with consolidating peace solely within the "docile coalition." That's not good enough for Israel, which needs a more inclusive gathering to enhance prospects for a positive outcome."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392510588&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Alon Liel advocates that Israel work to establish a treaty with Syria similiar to those in place with Egypt and Jordan; despite the fact that the Israeli ambassadors in those countries aren't free to roam around at will. Some places are hardship posts and Israel's diplomatic corps is as packed with security operatives as is that of the US. Get real.
December 26, 2007 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't care what someone who puts quotes around the word "Palestinians" has to say, much like I wouldn't read further if someone wrote "Holocaust."
December 26, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It needed to be said. And it couldn't have been said better.
December 26, 2007 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You apparently didn't read my posting very carefully. You know darned well I frequently write the word "Palestinian" without quotes all the time because I do acknowledge that there are people who call themselves "Palestinians", I simply note that they do not have a national identity in the normal, Western sense of the word, any more than do Welshmen, Northern Irelanders, Italian-Americans, Nevadans, Lapplanders, etc.
My putting the word "Palestinians" in quotes there was actually referring to them as an "autonomous national delegation" representing this people in peace talks with Israel, which as Danny Rubinstein pointed out in the article I mentioned, does not now exist.
December 26, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Palestinians"....do not have a national identity in the normal, Western sense of the word, any more than do Welshmen, Northern Irelanders, Italian-Americans, Nevadans, Lapplanders, etc."
But Jews/Israelis do!!!! Cute.
Bar K, should a 3rd generation American Jew in LA have a right to "return" to Israel but not a Palestinian from Acre whose family lived there for 700 years until driven out (or left voluntarily or strolled away or hopped out) in '48.
i know the Zionist answer and it is nuts.
December 26, 2007 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
To take the list of those who do not have a "national identity", the Welsh have a language and primarily live in an area with which they have long been associated. They can make a certain claim that they are under foreign English rule.
Lapplanders certainly have language(s) and a territory -- in the small world department, a US-Israeli dual citizen is developing Internet connectivity for nomadic reindeer herders.
Italian-Americans are an interesting question. Assume they all speak Italian as well as English, hardly a given. Is there a difference between Italian-American and Italian? Do the former, the latter, or both have a right of return?
Similar things can be said about Irish-Americans whose relatives emigrated due to the Potato Famine: language, land, etc. Ireland does have a right of return policy, but it isn't open-ended; one has to document at least one grandparent born in Ireland. If you don't think they have a relationship to a land, I don't know if the Formorians, the Tuatha de Danann, or the Little People will get to you first. Indeed, it was said, when Robert Briscoe became the first Jewish Lord Mayor of Dublin, people started seeing leprecohens, especially after a few jars of the cruel.
The Germans, Irish, and several others use the single-grandparent rule. Some American Indians use that, or will go a generation or two farther back. I don't know of any other "people" that claims a right of return over centuries.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]